523 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

BlueMagitek wrote...Oh yes, let's just blame the system for everything.  If Isolde had let the system work, Redcliffe wouldn't be full of the undead.

She has a point. I maintain that segregation is, ultimately, necessary to ensure both the safety of mundanes and their role in society. However, there are many forms of segregation.
Were the Circle a more open institution, people would be less afraid of sending their mage children there to receive the education they need for their good and everyone else's. It's not always going to work because of people like Isolde who, truthfully, had no reasons to hide her son since, as a noble, she would be able to see him far more often than common people would, but situations such as what happened with Meredith's sister might be avoided.

If a newly arriveed child is weeping for their parents, I'd say there might be a better chance of turning that child into a responsible adult who will follow the rules of the Circle if we allow him or her to see his or her family once a week or so to show them how they can read and perform magic tricks than if we keep them from said mage child and tell him or her to shut up and suck it up because life sucks.

Segregate them, yes, but if we cut all links with the mundane communities outside of the Circle, all we're promoting is factionalization and generalization. We don't need an "Us vs Them" mentality in Andrastean Nations, there's plenty of that in Tevinter.

[DPSSOC]

dragonflight288 wrote...

I acknowledge that people can be good, I'm even willing to acknowledge that not all good actions are motivated by selfishness, but doing and being bad are far more common. It's not about people changing, or everyone being an evil bastard, it's about our inclination as a species.

In my experience people are more likely to kick you when you're down rather than help you up. Consider that you have to teach a child to share what they have with others, you have to teach them not to take what isn't theirs, and you have to teach them that violence is wrong, because left to their own devices they'll horde, steal, and hit.

Maybe I'm just an old cynic but that's the world I grew up in, that's the world I wake up to every morning.

However you didn't answer the question, can you offer an example?

I did offer an example. Plenty of them. You don't need the best actions from the worst people. You just need good people doing good things because it's in their nature and that shows that it isn't human nature to try to screw everyone else to get ahead.

 
Then you missed my point, or I wasn't clear.  Good people do bad things because it is in our nature to do so, where as acts of kindness, generosity, etc. are contrary to our nature.  I'll use a simpler example; dog's bark, it is in their nature to bark, only through extensive conditioning can you get them to not bark and even then the dog will still bark on occaission.  We're conditioned to be good because it is in the best interests of society and individuals in general, but even the best conditioning fails.

If being good were truly in our nature it wouldn't be hard.

[dragonflight288]

DPSSOC wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

I acknowledge that people can be good, I'm even willing to acknowledge that not all good actions are motivated by selfishness, but doing and being bad are far more common. It's not about people changing, or everyone being an evil bastard, it's about our inclination as a species.

In my experience people are more likely to kick you when you're down rather than help you up. Consider that you have to teach a child to share what they have with others, you have to teach them not to take what isn't theirs, and you have to teach them that violence is wrong, because left to their own devices they'll horde, steal, and hit.

Maybe I'm just an old cynic but that's the world I grew up in, that's the world I wake up to every morning.

However you didn't answer the question, can you offer an example?

I did offer an example. Plenty of them. You don't need the best actions from the worst people. You just need good people doing good things because it's in their nature and that shows that it isn't human nature to try to screw everyone else to get ahead.

 
Then you missed my point, or I wasn't clear.  Good people do bad things because it is in our nature to do so, where as acts of kindness, generosity, etc. are contrary to our nature.  I'll use a simpler example; dog's bark, it is in their nature to bark, only through extensive conditioning can you get them to not bark and even then the dog will still bark on occaission.  We're conditioned to be good because it is in the best interests of society and individuals in general, but even the best conditioning fails.

If being good were truly in our nature it wouldn't be hard.

Except for people who don't have it in them to be jerks or do bad things. Some people just are good people because it's in their nature to be good.

And when good people make a mistake, you can't call it human nature that a good person has made that mistake.

I suppose that we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Silfren]

[quote]BlueMagitek wrote...

[quote]Silfren wrote...
Connor wasn't twelve.  I think he was supposed to be five or six, whatever age that magic tends to first express itself.  And I don't know of any evidence that the world of Dragon Age, or more precisely the nation of Ferelden, would be frothing at the mouth to see the child punished.  Especially since what happened did so ultimately because of Isolde's desperation to protect her son at the expense of his receiving proper training.  The blood lies most heavily on her hands.  Jowan's and Loghain's, too, but mostly on hers.  Then again I also blame the system as a whole because Isolde wouldn't have been terrified and ashamed of her son, or not so much, if not for the Chantry's determined hatemongering.

Again, we're NOT talking about a twelve year old boy here, but one more around six or so.  I think.  I'm not sure how old he's supposed to be, but fan opinion has always labeled him around that age, from what I know.  It's based on the fact that most mages' abilities tend to manifest around that age.[/quote]

Even then, that doesn't matter.  I was pointing out that it was 12 in our world, which is significantly more lenient than the world of Dragon Age in most matters.  Wynne mentions that children who display magic are usually killed out of fear if the Templar don't get their in time.  In this case, a child did to something horrific.  Of course there needs to be a punishment of sort.  How many lives are ruined because of this one idiot kid?

Oh yes, let's just blame the system for everything.  If Isolde had let the system work, Redcliffe wouldn't be full of the undead.[/quote]

Regardless of his actual age, Connor was a young boy, and by all appearances possibly sheltered by his mother quite beyond his being a mage.  It's grossly unfair to label him an idiot and blame him when he was acting out of childish ignorance and desperation.  Then again, I don't think anyone should be punished for freak accidents or accidents that arise from some other cause than negligence or malice.  Apparently I'm radical in thinking that way.

You don't think the trauma he experienced was punishment enough?  Or, potentially, losing his mother?  Or being taken away from the only home he's ever known?

[/quote]

Modifié par Silfren, 11 mars 2013 - 12:34 .

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...Oh yes, let's just blame the system for everything.  If Isolde had let the system work, Redcliffe wouldn't be full of the undead.

Segregate them, yes, but if we cut all links with the mundane communities outside of the Circle, all we're promoting is factionalization and generalization. We don't need an "Us vs Them" mentality in Andrastean Nations, there's plenty of that in Tevinter.

This right here is one of my biggest issues with the Circle in its present incarnation.  Creating an us-vs-them mentality not only engenders much more fear and hate for mages than is necessary, but it most assuredly has the same impact on mages hearing the same thing.  Just like there are mages like Keili who are so full of self-loathing they actually WANT the Templars to kill them, there are going to be mages of a more bitter and resentful bent who take the us-vs-them thing to heart and turn the Chantry's doctrine into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

At the VERY least, there is no need to endlessly preach that magic is a curse and mages are inherently prone toward superiority complexes. 

MisterJB, would you support a semi-closed community of mages if it were possible?  Something like Niall's private island idea, where mages could more or less come and go freely within that closed-off territory, but were still separated from mundane communities, and mundanes themselves could come and go and will, with the understanding that they entered the mage city at their own risks?  Could you see a workable community that was segregated from the larger world but offered mages more freedom than being enclosed in a single building?

[BlueMagitek]

Silfren wrote...

Regardless of his actual age, Connor was a young boy, and by all appearances possibly sheltered by his mother quite beyond his being a mage.  It's grossly unfair to label him an idiot and blame him when he was acting out of childish ignorance and desperation.  Then again, I don't think anyone should be punished for freak accidents or accidents that arise from some other cause than negligence or malice.  Apparently I'm radical in thinking that way.

You don't think the trauma he experienced was punishment enough?  Or, potentially, losing his mother?  Or being taken away from the only home he's ever known?

Yes, yes you are.  When you're brought up thinking that demons are bad, and then you go and make a deal with one, you're quite clearly either not in you right mind or not the sharpest knife in the ditch where the kitchen has thrown out it's worthless and broken knives.

Tell that to those who have lost their lives, those who have lost a father, daughter, mother, brother, sister, son, brother, tell that to the elves who lost their ears because one idiot kid was dumb enough to make a deal with a demon for something that EVERYONE has to deal with at some point in their lives, if they're lucky.   Connor recieves no sympathy from me.

[Silfren]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Regardless of his actual age, Connor was a young boy, and by all appearances possibly sheltered by his mother quite beyond his being a mage.  It's grossly unfair to label him an idiot and blame him when he was acting out of childish ignorance and desperation.  Then again, I don't think anyone should be punished for freak accidents or accidents that arise from some other cause than negligence or malice.  Apparently I'm radical in thinking that way.

You don't think the trauma he experienced was punishment enough?  Or, potentially, losing his mother?  Or being taken away from the only home he's ever known?

Yes, yes you are.  When you're brought up thinking that demons are bad, and then you go and make a deal with one, you're quite clearly either not in you right mind or not the sharpest knife in the ditch where the kitchen has thrown out it's worthless and broken knives.

Tell that to those who have lost their lives, those who have lost a father, daughter, mother, brother, sister, son, brother, tell that to the elves who lost their ears because one idiot kid was dumb enough to make a deal with a demon for something that EVERYONE has to deal with at some point in their lives, if they're lucky.   Connor recieves no sympathy from me.

Problem is, you're demanding that a child have the kind of rationality that ONLY comes from being an adult.  Isolde holds far more guilt for the horrific tragedy than Connor does.  Given what we know of how he was sheltered, and Isolde's tendency toward overprotectiveness, I highly suspect the kid didn't know much of anything about demons.  Sure, demons are a part of the world and figure into Chantry doctrine, but that hardly means that a very young boy, whether six OR ten, is going to be completely cognizant of what they are and mean, and that's for kids in general, not children who've been overly sheltered.

Also, what's with everyone and their dog repeating the line of "everyone has to deal with the kind of situation Connor was in at some point in their lives"?? Do people SERIOUSLY expect a young child, no more than ten years of age, to react to their father becoming deathly ill very suddenly, with the attitude of "Oh, this sort of thing happens to all fathers eventually, and I'm not unique in facing this fear and grief."  For the love of effing Christ, we're talking about a small child here!  He cannot be expected to reason like an adult with knowledge and experience!

Modifié par Silfren, 11 mars 2013 - 03:02 .

[BlueMagitek]

Silfren wrote...
Problem is, you're demanding that a child have the kind of rationality that ONLY comes from being an adult.  Isolde holds far more guilt for the horrific tragedy than Connor does.  Given what we know of how he was sheltered, and Isolde's tendency toward overprotectiveness, I highly suspect the kid didn't know much of anything about demons.  Sure, demons are a part of the world and figure into Chantry doctrine, but that hardly means that a very young boy, whether six OR ten, is going to be completely cognizant of what they are and mean, and that's for kids in general, not children who've been overly sheltered.

Also, what's with everyone and their dog repeating the line of "everyone has to deal with the kind of situation Connor was in at some point in their lives"?? Do people SERIOUSLY expect a young child, no more than ten years of age, to react to their father becoming deathly ill very suddenly, with the attitude of "Oh, this sort of thing happens to all fathers eventually, and I'm not unique in facing this fear and grief."  For the love of effing Christ, we're talking about a small child here!  He cannot be expected to reason like an adult with knowledge and experience!

Not a child.  A mage child.  And given the constant Chantry "Magic is meant to serve man, never to rule over him" goings on, I would be surprised if any Thedas citizen (well, Southern Thedas) was unaware of the danges of magic.

Because he's a mage and the situation would be averted had he actually been in the Circle.  Which is part of the point, really.  And he's a child who has more than most, being the son of a noble.  Thank goodness the children of the poor don't go on the same freak outs and kill everyone.

You also ignore the suffering of everyone but Connor. :/

[Silfren]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Problem is, you're demanding that a child have the kind of rationality that ONLY comes from being an adult.  Isolde holds far more guilt for the horrific tragedy than Connor does.  Given what we know of how he was sheltered, and Isolde's tendency toward overprotectiveness, I highly suspect the kid didn't know much of anything about demons.  Sure, demons are a part of the world and figure into Chantry doctrine, but that hardly means that a very young boy, whether six OR ten, is going to be completely cognizant of what they are and mean, and that's for kids in general, not children who've been overly sheltered.

Also, what's with everyone and their dog repeating the line of "everyone has to deal with the kind of situation Connor was in at some point in their lives"?? Do people SERIOUSLY expect a young child, no more than ten years of age, to react to their father becoming deathly ill very suddenly, with the attitude of "Oh, this sort of thing happens to all fathers eventually, and I'm not unique in facing this fear and grief."  For the love of effing Christ, we're talking about a small child here!  He cannot be expected to reason like an adult with knowledge and experience!

Not a child.  A mage child.  And given the constant Chantry "Magic is meant to serve man, never to rule over him" goings on, I would be surprised if any Thedas citizen (well, Southern Thedas) was unaware of the danges of magic.

Because he's a mage and the situation would be averted had he actually been in the Circle.  Which is part of the point, really.  And he's a child who has more than most, being the son of a noble.  Thank goodness the children of the poor don't go on the same freak outs and kill everyone.

You also ignore the suffering of everyone but Connor. :/

I'm not ignoring anyone's suffering.  The only difference between us is that I place the majority of the blame on Isolde.  SHE is the one who was terrified of magic and demons and yet thought it would be a good idea to grab any random apostate to train her son in deep, dark secret.  Personally I'm completely stunned by the fact that you seem to think Connor is totally to blame and not her at all.  I'm not denying that horrific things happened or that many people died in brutal fashion while others lost dear ones.  I'm saying that the ignorant child doesn't deserve the bulk of the blame when the adults around him, who DID know, are the ones who put him in the position he was in in the first place.  Don't forget, Isolde's idiocy put Connor himself directly at risk.  Again, she knew full well what the dangers were, and yet she took insane risks.  Why are you not saying anything about punishing her?

Connor being a mage has exactly f*ck all to do with his being a child, so if you're trying to apply the same kind of logic behind mages being inherently different from mundanes, don't bother. It's totally invalid to the question of his simply being a child as opposed to an adult.  Mage or not, children cannot and should not be expected to have the same reasoning capacity as adults.

Connor being taught Chantry religion doesn't mean he'll *get* it the same way an adult will.  It's one thing to be told something, quite another to believe it/understand it.  I fail to see what's so hard about this.  Children in the real world are OFTEN sent to church several times a week, every week, for the entirety of their lives, but that doesn't mean they'll understand everything they're taught when they're no more than ten years old.

The situation would have been averted if he'd been in the Circle, yes.  But that's where Isolde's fear and shame comes into play, and Chantry propaganda is to blame for much of that. 

What the hell does Connor being a noble have to do with him "freaking out?"  Connor didn't "go on a freak out and kill everyone."  Where he went wrong was a bad judgment in trusting a denizen of the Fade without knowing what it really was.  The freak out was caused by the demon working through him, not Connor himself.  Finally, there is NO reason to think the same thing wouldn't have happened to a peasant child who found themselves in the same situation, with a deadly ill father and a mother too terrified of losing her son to let anyone know that he was a mage.

Modifié par Silfren, 11 mars 2013 - 04:07 .

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

It's not always going to work because of people like Isolde who, truthfully, had no reasons to hide her son since, as a noble, she would be able to see him far more often than common people would, but situations such as what happened with Meredith's sister might be avoided.

I don't think Isolde "had no reasons to hide her son," because one of her most poignant lines in Redcliffe is "If they knew Connor had magic, they'd take him away!"  Re-play that scene if you can, or find it on Youtube, and listen to the emotion of her voice.  She either does not believe that she would ever see Connor again, or doesn't care about being allowed visitation rights, she absolutely does not want to lose her son.  If the former, then she must have had a reason to believe it.  Could it be that mage children of nobles DON'T usually get to see their parents, but Arl Eamon decided that by God he was going to see his son, and used his political clout to make it happen?  We're told in DA2 that magic is so taboo that it's a deal breaker for marrying into a family line.  Do we have any reason to think Ferelden doesn't have the same opinion among its own nobility?  If so it could be that noble mage children just are so rare that Isolde doesn't know if Ferelden Circles are willing to bend its rules for noble families.

If it's the latter, and visitation rights aren't enough to make Isolde less fearful, well...isn't that to be expected of most parents who love their children?  The reason, however necessary, of taking the child away is rather beside the point for a parent facing that kind of heartbreak, don't you think?  How many parents would think that being able to see their child on occasion would make up for having that child taken completely out of their care?

I don't get this determination to expect people act like totally rational robots...well, like Tranquils, instead of human beings, all of whom are known for the capacity to sometimes act irrationally when faced with extremely stressful, emotional situations.

Modifié par Silfren, 11 mars 2013 - 04:25 .

[TEWR]

Could it be that mage children of nobles DON'T usually get to see their parents, but Arl Eamon decided that by God he was going to see his son, and used his political clout to make it happen?

Many nobles actually do get to see their kids in visitation because of their wealth and influence, so it'd be more along the latter of why Isolde is saying that line: that even seeing her son occasionally just isn't the same as raising him yourself.

[Plaintiff]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Could it be that mage children of nobles DON'T usually get to see their parents, but Arl Eamon decided that by God he was going to see his son, and used his political clout to make it happen?

Many nobles actually do get to see their kids in visitation because of their wealth and influence, so it'd be more along the latter of why Isolde is saying that line: that even seeing her son occasionally just isn't the same as raising him yourself.

Which is, of course, totally fair. Because it's not the same, and no decent parent would consider it to be the same. Hell, in the real world, some people can't even stand the idea of their child being raised by the other parent in the event of a divorce.

And there's no guarantee whatsoever that Connor will be safe in the Circle. Demonic possession still happens there as much as it does anywhere else, with the added comfort of belligerent templars who might assault him in any number of ways for any number of reasons.

I would not consider visitation rights to be acceptable compensation, knowing that my child might be bullied, beaten, or even killed during my absence.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 11 mars 2013 - 06:06 .

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Could it be that mage children of nobles DON'T usually get to see their parents, but Arl Eamon decided that by God he was going to see his son, and used his political clout to make it happen?

Many nobles actually do get to see their kids in visitation because of their wealth and influence, so it'd be more along the latter of why Isolde is saying that line: that even seeing her son occasionally just isn't the same as raising him yourself.

Do we actually know this?  I only recall one case, and it was the one in Orlais where the noblewoman insisted on having a luxurious Circle built so that her daughter could live in splendor.  That always sounded to me more like that one noble had considerable influence.  I'm sure that Ferelden nobility are used to certain privileges being assumed, but I still wonder if Isolde had reason to think that Ferelden's culture might be less inclined to flout Circle laws.  I don't really know, except that I could see Orlais' Circle being more open to the demands of nobles, the way the government and Chantry are so much more closely intertwined there.

[Silfren]

Plaintiff wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Could it be that mage children of nobles DON'T usually get to see their parents, but Arl Eamon decided that by God he was going to see his son, and used his political clout to make it happen?

Many nobles actually do get to see their kids in visitation because of their wealth and influence, so it'd be more along the latter of why Isolde is saying that line: that even seeing her son occasionally just isn't the same as raising him yourself.

Which is, of course, totally fair. Because it's not the same, and no decent parent would consider it to be the same. Hell, in the real world, some people can't even stand the idea of their child being raised by the other parent in the event of a divorce.

And there's no guarantee whatsoever that Connor will be safe in the Circle. Demonic possession still happens there as much as it does anywhere else, with the added comfort of belligerent templars who might assault him in any number of ways for any number of reasons.

I would not consider visitation rights to be acceptable compensation, knowing that my child might be bullied, beaten, or even killed during my absence.

Or made Tranquil.  I'm sure many parents just LOVE having to face the prospect of their child being emotionally castrated.

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

Do we actually know this?  I only recall one case, and it was the one in Orlais where the noblewoman insisted on having a luxurious Circle built so that her daughter could live in splendor.  That always sounded to me more like that one noble had considerable influence.  I'm sure that Ferelden nobility are used to certain privileges being assumed, but I still wonder if Isolde had reason to think that Ferelden's culture might be less inclined to flout Circle laws.  I don't really know, except that I could see Orlais' Circle being more open to the demands of nobles, the way the government and Chantry are so much more closely intertwined there.

Leandra was able to see Bethany during Act 2, no doubt due to how she had returned to being one of the most important nobles in the city.

Finn's item descriptions imply that his family is also wealthy, as his gloves and boots are lined with expensive fox fur while his belt was commissioned by his father to be made by Denerim's finest leatherworker.

The nobility of Kirkwall similarly talk of their relatives, so I'd conjecture they get to see their children too. I can't quite recall their comments after the Orsino-Meredith confrontation, but I'm fairly certain some talk about having seen their daughters/nieces/nephews/whatever.

I believe there were a few other cases of wealthy nobles getting to see their relatives. Perhaps it has to do with the level of wealth and influence, as the minor noble de Launcet family were never able to see Emile. Hell, Emile was never even allowed to be outside the Gallows wall. 

Similarly, Huon was never able to see his wife while he was in the Circle for 10 years, and many of the Templars of Kirkwall have shown they'd rather abuse and torture Mages then care about their safety, well-being, and whatnot. He's an Alienage Elf, but it does demonstrate a clear divide for what Mages born into wealthy families can have and what others cannot have.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 11 mars 2013 - 08:30 .

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


Leandra was able to see Bethany during Act 2, no doubt due to how she had returned to being one of the most important nobles in the city.

Finn's item descriptions imply that his family is also wealthy, as his gloves and boots are lined with expensive fox fur while his belt was commissioned by his father to be made by Denerim's finest leatherworker.

Ah, okay.  I'd forgotten both those details. 

[DPSSOC]

Silfren wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
It's not always going to work because of people like Isolde who, truthfully, had no reasons to hide her son since, as a noble, she would be able to see him far more often than common people would, but situations such as what happened with Meredith's sister might be avoided.

I don't think Isolde "had no reasons to hide her son," because one of her most poignant lines in Redcliffe is "If they knew Connor had magic, they'd take him away!"  Re-play that scene if you can, or find it on Youtube, and listen to the emotion of her voice.  She either does not believe that she would ever see Connor again, or doesn't care about being allowed visitation rights, she absolutely does not want to lose her son.

I think you might be giving Isolde slightly too much credit.  Keep in mind that Eamon was encouraging Cailan to drop Anora because she wasn't giving him an heir, if Eamon thought Isolde couldn't give him an heir, either because they've tried to have children since Connor and failed or he figured any children she did have would be mages he'd probably drop her in an instant.  Isolde likely knew her husbands temperment, and was probably aware of his letters to Cailan, and worried about losing Connor more because she might be cast away, rather than actual concern for her son.

[dragonflight288]

DPSSOC wrote...

Silfren wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
It's not always going to work because of people like Isolde who, truthfully, had no reasons to hide her son since, as a noble, she would be able to see him far more often than common people would, but situations such as what happened with Meredith's sister might be avoided.

I don't think Isolde "had no reasons to hide her son," because one of her most poignant lines in Redcliffe is "If they knew Connor had magic, they'd take him away!"  Re-play that scene if you can, or find it on Youtube, and listen to the emotion of her voice.  She either does not believe that she would ever see Connor again, or doesn't care about being allowed visitation rights, she absolutely does not want to lose her son.

I think you might be giving Isolde slightly too much credit.  Keep in mind that Eamon was encouraging Cailan to drop Anora because she wasn't giving him an heir, if Eamon thought Isolde couldn't give him an heir, either because they've tried to have children since Connor and failed or he figured any children she did have would be mages he'd probably drop her in an instant.  Isolde likely knew her husbands temperment, and was probably aware of his letters to Cailan, and worried about losing Connor more because she might be cast away, rather than actual concern for her son.

No. I was pretty darn convinced that Isolde wasn't even thinking along those lines while playing through Redcliff. It all revolves around Connor, and Eamon is only mentioned when we're talking about how he's been poisoned and Isolde grew desperate to save him and sent most of the knights away, thus leaving the village defenselss.

There is nothing, other than a letter from Eamon to Cailan, that suggests that Eamon would suggest putting away a wife if the wife couldn't provide an heir. He later states that he would give his life to preserve the line of Calanhad, the line that united Ferelden.

He was seeing to the royal line, and Alistair was the last resort.

[Silfren]

DPSSOC wrote...

Silfren wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
It's not always going to work because of people like Isolde who, truthfully, had no reasons to hide her son since, as a noble, she would be able to see him far more often than common people would, but situations such as what happened with Meredith's sister might be avoided.

I don't think Isolde "had no reasons to hide her son," because one of her most poignant lines in Redcliffe is "If they knew Connor had magic, they'd take him away!"  Re-play that scene if you can, or find it on Youtube, and listen to the emotion of her voice.  She either does not believe that she would ever see Connor again, or doesn't care about being allowed visitation rights, she absolutely does not want to lose her son.

I think you might be giving Isolde slightly too much credit.  Keep in mind that Eamon was encouraging Cailan to drop Anora because she wasn't giving him an heir, if Eamon thought Isolde couldn't give him an heir, either because they've tried to have children since Connor and failed or he figured any children she did have would be mages he'd probably drop her in an instant.  Isolde likely knew her husbands temperment, and was probably aware of his letters to Cailan, and worried about losing Connor more because she might be cast away, rather than actual concern for her son.

I don't think so. I'm really at a loss as to where you're getting any of this, actually.  Origins lore is pretty clear about Eamon and Isolde marrying out of love.  Don't forget that she's an Orlesian.  Fereldans aren't too thrilled with Orlesians in the present time of Origins, but Eamon married her right in the middle of the worst of Fereldan contempt for Orlais.  It's even pointed out that by doing so he ended in conflict with King Maric.  So Eamon obviously isn't about to let politics interfere with his personal life (though he is also apparently not of the opinion that others should have the same freedom).  He clearly loves Isolde.  I don't think he's the sort who would abandon the woman he loved because she was unable to provide an heir.  But quite beyond that, we have no reason to think Eamon is unaware that magic runs in Isolde's family.  She's ashamed of it, clearly, but she doesn't hesitate overmuch in admitting her lineage to the Warden, and given the obvious love between her and Eamon, I personally don't think she would have hid something from him that she didn't hide from the Warden--she had no need at all to tell the Warden about her mage background, after all. 

Add to all this the fact that if Isolde lives, she and Eamon DO have another child, a daughter who also turns out to be a mage.  By all appearances, Eamon loves both his children very much, given that the codex indicates that he goes to frequently visit one or both children in the Circle.  That's not the behavior of a man who cares more about heirs than family.  For that matter, if Isolde dies, there's nothing said about Eamon marrying again, in order to procure another heir with a second wife, something he'd have to do if that mattered to him, since a living Connor has to forfeit his title.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't like Isolde at all.  But I don't see any reason at all to think that she doesn't love her son and husband both dearly. 

What are you basing your theory on, this idea that Isolde didn't care about Connor so much as her own fate?  I'm genuinely curious.

Modifié par Silfren, 12 mars 2013 - 03:22 .

[Plaintiff]

DPSSOC wrote...

Silfren wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
It's not always going to work because of people like Isolde who, truthfully, had no reasons to hide her son since, as a noble, she would be able to see him far more often than common people would, but situations such as what happened with Meredith's sister might be avoided.

I don't think Isolde "had no reasons to hide her son," because one of her most poignant lines in Redcliffe is "If they knew Connor had magic, they'd take him away!"  Re-play that scene if you can, or find it on Youtube, and listen to the emotion of her voice.  She either does not believe that she would ever see Connor again, or doesn't care about being allowed visitation rights, she absolutely does not want to lose her son.

I think you might be giving Isolde slightly too much credit.  Keep in mind that Eamon was encouraging Cailan to drop Anora because she wasn't giving him an heir, if Eamon thought Isolde couldn't give him an heir, either because they've tried to have children since Connor and failed or he figured any children she did have would be mages he'd probably drop her in an instant.  Isolde likely knew her husbands temperment, and was probably aware of his letters to Cailan, and worried about losing Connor more because she might be cast away, rather than actual concern for her son.

If Eamon was concerned about embarrassing himself or his family line in the eyes of Ferelden's nobility, he wouldn't have married an Orlesian woman to start with.

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
If it's the latter, and visitation rights aren't enough to make Isolde less fearful, well...isn't that to be expected of most parents who love their children?  The reason, however necessary, of taking the child away is rather beside the point for a parent facing that kind of heartbreak, don't you think?  How many parents would think that being able to see their child on occasion would make up for having that child taken completely out of their care?

And most children aren't capable of killing dozens upon dozens of people. I would feel more sorry for Isolde if her own secrecy hadn't indirectly caused these deaths.
Connor has already proven to be extremely dangerous and as sad as it may be, it's obvious he can't remain on Redcliff. So, Isolde will just have to content herself in having privileges most parents of mage children don't.

[BlueMagitek]

Silfren wrote...

I'm not ignoring anyone's suffering.  The only difference between us is that I place the majority of the blame on Isolde.  SHE is the one who was terrified of magic and demons and yet thought it would be a good idea to grab any random apostate to train her son in deep, dark secret.  Personally I'm completely stunned by the fact that you seem to think Connor is totally to blame and not her at all.  I'm not denying that horrific things happened or that many people died in brutal fashion while others lost dear ones.  I'm saying that the ignorant child doesn't deserve the bulk of the blame when the adults around him, who DID know, are the ones who put him in the position he was in in the first place.  Don't forget, Isolde's idiocy put Connor himself directly at risk.  Again, she knew full well what the dangers were, and yet she took insane risks.  Why are you not saying anything about punishing her?

Connor being a mage has exactly f*ck all to do with his being a child, so if you're trying to apply the same kind of logic behind mages being inherently different from mundanes, don't bother. It's totally invalid to the question of his simply being a child as opposed to an adult.  Mage or not, children cannot and should not be expected to have the same reasoning capacity as adults.

Connor being taught Chantry religion doesn't mean he'll *get* it the same way an adult will.  It's one thing to be told something, quite another to believe it/understand it.  I fail to see what's so hard about this.  Children in the real world are OFTEN sent to church several times a week, every week, for the entirety of their lives, but that doesn't mean they'll understand everything they're taught when they're no more than ten years old.

The situation would have been averted if he'd been in the Circle, yes.  But that's where Isolde's fear and shame comes into play, and Chantry propaganda is to blame for much of that. 

What the hell does Connor being a noble have to do with him "freaking out?"  Connor didn't "go on a freak out and kill everyone."  Where he went wrong was a bad judgment in trusting a denizen of the Fade without knowing what it really was.  The freak out was caused by the demon working through him, not Connor himself.  Finally, there is NO reason to think the same thing wouldn't have happened to a peasant child who found themselves in the same situation, with a deadly ill father and a mother too terrified of losing her son to let anyone know that he was a mage.

Totally to blame?  No, I admitted that Isolde should have let him go to the Circle and we would not have such a situation on our hands.  If Isolde had told her son to try and save her husband through magic, she would have almost all of the blame, but as it stands, it was Connor's choice and his alone.  As for Isolde, she should have whatever the punishment is for harboring an apostate, which is what her crime was.

He must be better than a normal child if he is going to be making deals with demons.  Clearly this is not the case.

"Demons will eat your soul if you try and summon them with magic."
"Hey Mr Demon can you ple-- auauaauagh~!  I could not have seen this coming!"

It's one of the reasons, I suspect, that he is not punished as he should be.  His actions directly resulted in a large amount of death and mutilation.  "Well, the stranger said he would shoot everyone if I let him into the armory" isn't an excuse at all.  A peasant child would have much more reason to want to summon a demon than a noble.  But no, being of the highest class in Thedas isn't enough for Connor, is it? :/

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

What are you basing your theory on, this idea that Isolde didn't care about Connor so much as her own fate? I'm genuinely curious.

Well, though this has nothing to do with the idea of Isolde not caring about Connor, Loghain does say that Eamon knew of Connor's status as a Mage and kept it a secret so that Connor could remain heir, because if Connor was taken away and Eamon died childless the arling would pass to Teagan.

And Teagan was also without children and a wife, so there was a fair chance that Teagan would die without an heir and the Guerrin family would cease to exist entirely and Redcliffe would pass to someone else.

And that it was this very fact that allowed Jowan to easily be hired into the household to tutor Connor. 

This however doesn't mean Eamon doesn't love his children and wife. He truly does, but Eamon is quite a traditionalist concerned with matters of inheritance as well. And I'm sure Alistair being someone he could manipulate.... I mean "advise" made it all the more appealing to him.

BlueMagitek wrote...

it was Connor's choice and his alone.  As for Isolde, she should have whatever the punishment is for harboring an apostate, which is what her crime was.

It's never been made clear what the punishment is for harboring an apostate. All I know is that it's certainly not punishable by death. 

BlueMagitek wrote...

 A peasant child would have much more reason to want to summon a demon than a noble.  But no, being of the highest class in Thedas isn't enough for Connor, is it?

That's unfair of you. Being nobility is hardly going to make the death of a loved one more acceptable. When Eamon fell ill, all manner of healing magic and poultices were tried to bring him back to health and they failed.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 12 mars 2013 - 10:31 .

[BlueMagitek]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

it was Connor's choice and his alone.  As for Isolde, she should have whatever the punishment is for harboring an apostate, which is what her crime was.

It's never been made clear what the punishment is for harboring an apostate. All I know is that it's certainly not punishable by death. 

BlueMagitek wrote...

 A peasant child would have much more reason to want to summon a demon than a noble.  But no, being of the highest class in Thedas isn't enough for Connor, is it?

That's unfair of you. Being nobility is hardly going to make the death of a loved one more acceptable. When Eamon fell ill, all manner of healing magic and poultices were tried to bring him back to health and they failed.

It seems to depend on whatever the Templar of the area are into.  Death in Kirkwall, probably a fine of sort everywhere else.  Perhaps the threat of Andraste-excommunication if the apostate turns out to be a maleficar?

Well forgive me for assuming that the child with more of his wants and all of his needs taken care of than the children living on the street might be able to grieve without turning to demon summoning.  It isn't like Eoman is a decent person anyway, if he's willng to let his nephew sleep with the dogs.  Heck, Rowan died of a mysterious illness too, and you didn't see Cailan begging the mages who tried to heal her to summon demons.

[Plaintiff]

We should poison BlueMagitek's parents and see if the pain of loss is dulled when we give him money.